I'm not exactly sure of what that has to do with anything, but alright.

And to elaborate on what K^2 said, space colonization and perhaps intergalactic population. With the latter, I mean some form of construction of living quarters going ahead. Living under the sea is always an option too, but it's not very practical. Makes me think though, that by the time the earth comes to an end, humans by then will take survival to it's limit and flee the planet, seeking alternative living conditions.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DemonKing
4

DemonKing
4

And I'm with Masterkraft on this one, what the heck does second life have to do with over-population. Engaging yourself in an online game isn't going to solve anything, if you mean like instead of having real sex you have e-sex, then yeah but thats just kinda retarded. Most over population is due to goddamn people trying again and again for a certain gender of child. Though englands over population is due to over hormoned teenagers getting their freak on with each other without the aide of protection.

But yeah E-sex aint the answer.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Stefan.
7

Stefan.
7

The only way to reduce overpopulation is to increase construction of living quarters throughout the country (I'm saying this from an Australian perspective; for example, by creating new suburbs on the outskirts of the city), and by reducing the number of people which people can reproduce. It's not that difficult.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

yakuza warlord
25

yakuza warlord
25

Constructing more buildings isnt really going to solve the problem though. We are talking about a give and take here. Its not going to be a crisis situation where it goes from point A (we have a population crisis) to point B (BUILD MOAR). Setbacks occur especially when overpopulated areas exist in areas of low employment rates. Hear me out before you get economy on my ass. You have a town that can hold about 10,000 jobs, with about 100 people unemployed. You suddenly have a big generation snap of kids out of high school or people moving in. Given with standard cutbacks we will say that the town can hold about 9500-9000 jobs and you have 500-750 people unemployed. Could be cause for a need of expansion in housing, but with what money? Those houses will sit basically empty. It would be too much to turn a blind eye to wanderers taking refuge at night in a shell of a house, but if no one is getting anything in return from helping out a fellow human being, then it wont be done.

Unfortunately with space colonization, its the same issue. No money no go.

Now if we pull money out of this function, everything becomes a little bit clearer. E-sex wont solve our problem, but neither will a monitor on reproduction. Its too late now to put a limit on household inhabitants. Theres always the possibility that you can inhabit areas where people wouldnt want to live (deserts, plains, mountains, etc) but eventually every town will just inch closer and closer together as it expands. Space colonization would be perfect, but that will come with decades of patience.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Machida
1

Machida
1

Instead of a system where the few are responsible for the many, let the few govern themselves. Currently we've got a system in place that enables the weak to feast off the backs of the strong. Tax fraud, government corruption and so on and so on. Well instead we flip that around, let the people think of their own needs rather than the needs of many. Let the strong feast on the weak. Literally. I mean, eat them. It would cut down the population and offer some tasty side snacks to boot.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

agent17
13

agent17
13

Yes, China only allows one child per family. But the problem is, birth rate still exceeds the death rate in china, plus extra child's are still being born.

Another problem is that population control is highly undesirable is most cultures, meaning that birth limits will be highly unlikely in most parts of the world, unless if it is forcefully imposed.

In any case, the population will continue to grow, and exceed the global death rate unless something happens.

I have yet to see a reasonable solution to this problem, and at this point I think it's too late.

At first there is only one lily pad in the pond, but the next day it doubles, and thereafter each of its descendants doubles. The pond completely fills up with lily pads in 30 days. When is the pond exactly half full?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

D- Ice
467

D- Ice
467

There's easily enought resources on Earth for many times our current 6.5 billion population, it's just thanks to corporate greed, and corruption throughout the world is preventing the efficiency even needed to comfortably sustain everyone as it is. Corporate greed and "Stock and dump" tactics mean so much food, energy etc... is being thrown away just to keep the prices high. Third-world resources exploitation means much more extremely cheap foods come here - so much of which is thrown away while the people who produce it starve.

Backwards conservative/extremist/racist ways of thinking also prevent true advancements in just about every field, and then we have all those f*cking wars where all that money and more importantly - intellectual research time is being wasted. Money being thrown at weapons and the smartest people working on new ways to kill other people rather than help humanity.

So no, I don't recognise any over-population anywhere (except the dumb Chinese problem with men/women ratios, but that will solve itself over time).

Call me a hippie or idealist all you want, but we're all in this sh*t together - and I'd love to see this world turn to more sh*t for all those assholes who think going about the same way we're going - or more vitally, thinking in the way we do - is gonna solve anything.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sergi
2

Sergi
2

There's easily enought resources on Earth for many times our current 6.5 billion population, it's just thanks to corporate greed, and corruption throughout the world is preventing the efficiency even needed to comfortably sustain everyone as it is. Corporate greed and "Stock and dump" tactics mean so much food, energy etc... is being thrown away just to keep the prices high. Third-world resources exploitation means much more extremely cheap foods come here - so much of which is thrown away while the people who produce it starve.

Backwards conservative/extremist/racist ways of thinking also prevent true advancements in just about every field, and then we have all those f*cking wars where all that money and more importantly - intellectual research time is being wasted. Money being thrown at weapons and the smartest people working on new ways to kill other people rather than help humanity.

So no, I don't recognise any over-population anywhere (except the dumb Chinese problem with men/women ratios, but that will solve itself over time).

Call me a hippie or idealist all you want, but we're all in this sh*t together - and I'd love to see this world turn to more sh*t for all those assholes who think going about the same way we're going - or more vitally, thinking in the way we do - is gonna solve anything.

I agree with you every bit. Also I remember on I think CNBC or MSNBC like 6 months ago the former president of Shell was being interviewed and he said there is more then enough energy around the world and things like peak oil don't exist it's just a term coined to be able to make oil prices higher for these companies and countries to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Anyways I think the only real option for over population, which is somewhat of a problem now but will be even more of a problem in a hundred years or so, will be space colonization as somebody else said. Humans can't be stuck on Earth forever and I'd guess by at least the 2050s the Moon and Mars will have been colonized to an extent and by that time we'll either have found some of the possible billions of Earth life planets in our galaxy alone or maybe we'll would have alien contact by then. I'm guessing the former would happen way before the later but I think by the 2100s at least there will be equipment and technology that we may or may not be able to travel outside or solar system for other habitable planets if we found them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rmmstnr
1

rmmstnr
1

Actually there is quite a bit of unused space on earth, especially in the US. Check out population density maps of the world (take some close looks) and you can see that in most medium-to-large continents/countries, their people are mostly clustered around lakes and rivers. There are great expanses of empty and near-empty land to colonize.

Suprisingly, after all these years since pressurized plumbing has been the standard of any kind of city, water distribution can still be a problem (hence the population clusters). Just check out the south-western part of the US. I think that will be an increasingly problematic, err, problem in the near future.

Other than that, the big problems we've got are power, pollution, and how they intertwine. Food production isn't a problem (in most industrialized places). A bigger need for food will simply means food prices go up, farmers stop being paid to not produce food, farmers plant/raise more food, prices go down, and and equilibrium is eventually reached.

In fact, much of the open space can be used for farming. But that brings up once more the problem of water distribution. Power/pollution can be fixed with conservation effeorts and by building new nuclear power plants instead of using the very old, less efficient, less safe, and more wasteful ones of yester-year. We'd just need more places like Yucca mountain to be built.

Strange, the hippies don't want anymore nuclear power plants, so they pass a law stating we just keep the old obsolete, less safe ones and keep from improving and making new ones. Don't-cha love when self-righteousness gets in the way of logic?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

John The Grudge
409

John The Grudge
409

I think over population will become a really big issue eventually. It boils down to our overall lifestyle. Humans cannot maintain this way of living indefinitely. We need to start considering the future. A thousand years from now, how many humans will there be? What effect will that have on our lifestyle? These people will need homes, jobs and transport. What will we do with all the waste? We have to take responsibility for these things or we are no better than cockroaches.

Any politician brave enough to suggest a solution will probably just be labled a commy. Sooner or later, when we are up to our neck in waste and packed like sardines in a can, we will have to accept that our way of life just doesn't work.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

major underscore
0

major underscore
0

The problem has never been the absolute number of people, but rather the resources each person needs.

I'm not talking about absolute numbers, but population density. When a country/region/etc. is underpopulated (low population density), everything else being equal, people living there will use more resources (transportation, infrastructure, etc.) per capita than had they lived in a more densely populated country/region/etc. where resources could be more rationally used.

We would need 6.5 Earths to sustain everyone on the earth with our current modern lifestyle. Which means poverty can never be cured, with this amount of people at least.

I'd like to see what statistics you used to come up with that number and what particular resource you point to as the bottleneck.

Poverty is the state that all countries started in, it's not a historical anomaly, or a disease, but rather a symptom. What is interesting is how some countries have risen from this state of poverty to great wealth and what lessons can be applied in the countries that have not yet made the transition.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

makeshyft
176

makeshyft
176

Only someone who had never had sex would make such a ludicrous comment. Do you actually believe that virtual games are an adequate replacement for actually living? Interesting position to take. Ridiculous, but interesting.

A lot of governments don't want people to stop having babies, anyway. People are living longer, and they're generally supported by the state upon their retirement. In the old days, people would retire, be supported for a couple of years then check out. Nowadays, people are living fifteen, maybe twenty years after their retirement. Young people are needed to pay taxes, so whatever government is involved can provide welfare.

My solution?

Mandatory sterilisation which can only be reversed once an applicant has passed a rigorous screening process. They will then be granted a birthing licence, have the number of children allocated to them, then be sterilised again. But if we stem the rate of birth, how do we support the elderly in their golden years?

Everyone is put to sleep at the age of 70. That's right: if you're not going to work, then you're not contributing. Should you decide to work past the average retirement age, then you may live indefinitely.

(I'm not serious, of course)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

major underscore
0

major underscore
0

A lot of governments don't want people to stop having babies, anyway. People are living longer, and they're generally supported by the state upon their retirement. In the old days, people would retire, be supported for a couple of years then check out. Nowadays, people are living fifteen, maybe twenty years after their retirement. Young people are needed to pay taxes, so whatever government is involved can provide welfare.

I wouldn't say that seniors are "generally supported by the state upon their retirement". That's a pretty new historical phenomenon even in the parts of the world where it works that way. In most countries retired people are still supported by their children and relatives and/or live off their savings with little or no government support.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

860
1,602

860
1,602

Only someone who had never had sex would make such a ludicrous comment. Do you actually believe that virtual games are an adequate replacement for actually living? Interesting position to take. Ridiculous, but interesting.

in the future it´ll be alot more realistic.. like 5 sense gaming or something like that.

but that was just the first thing that popped into my mind. it wouldnt be the cure

but it might help a little.

and yes, we do need more people now that the baby boomers that we´re born right

after the war are getting retired.

i didnt mention the obvious.. space colonization since by the time

we will finally be able to do that we´re knee high in sh*t.

UN predicts that we will have about 9.2 billion in 2050

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mike Tequeli
11

Mike Tequeli
11

There is no over population problem. If anything, we need to have more kids.

This is actually something that drives me crazy, as in I couldn't fully explain it unless I could talk to you personally about it. People who think the world is horrifyingly overpopulated and that desperate measures must be taken aren't seeing the truth. The only people who moan about over population are first world white people, who live in a land of plentiful resources and dangerously low birth rates. Meanwhile people in the third world, with no resources or money, breed like rabbits.

The birth rate in the industrialized world is generally below 2, which is below replacement rate, as in if we had no immigration we would go extinct. This presents a huge problem, something the governments often try to curb with tax incentives to breed. Our population ages and our numbers dwindle, as does the tax base, there won't be any money to prop up our government or society. People (as in everyone I know) make this problem worse by assuming that we are teeming with babies and that everybody needs to go get sterilized.

As conditions improve in the third world, their birth rate should stabilize too. The global population should curve around 9 billion, which is manageable. Any birth rate below 2 is a bad thing though, The German Government could tell you that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

agent17
13

agent17
13

To help the issue we need a more conservative stance on immigration and a more liberal stance on abortion.

Cultures are different, some people breed like animals. Without any sense of responsibility. And there's not enough to go around, some people have to get off the gravy train.

We cannot sustain a society where people can just pop out baby after baby. There has to some control. Especially in these difficult economic times.

I don't disagree with you, there does NEED to be some form of control, but how many governments would be willing to do this, we all know there are ethical issues with population restrictions. I doubt many people would even consider it until the "29th" day.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mike Tequeli
11

Mike Tequeli
11

To help the issue we need a more conservative stance on immigration and a more liberal stance on abortion.

Cultures are different, some people breed like animals. Without any sense of responsibility. And there's not enough to go around, some people have to get off the gravy train.

We cannot sustain a society where people can just pop out baby after baby. There has to some control. Especially in these difficult economic times.

I don't disagree with you, there does NEED to be some form of control, but how many governments would be willing to do this, we all know there are ethical issues with population restrictions. I doubt many people would even consider it until the "29th" day.

Yeah and we can ignore everything I said about the birth rate being too low and leading to the eventual collapse the society. We need immigrants to help keep the population young, among other things.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

860
1,602

860
1,602

To help the issue we need a more conservative stance on immigration and a more liberal stance on abortion.

Cultures are different, some people breed like animals. Without any sense of responsibility. And there's not enough to go around, some people have to get off the gravy train.

We cannot sustain a society where people can just pop out baby after baby. There has to some control. Especially in these difficult economic times.

I don't disagree with you, there does NEED to be some form of control, but how many governments would be willing to do this, we all know there are ethical issues with population restrictions. I doubt many people would even consider it until the "29th" day.

Yeah and we can ignore everything I said about the birth rate being too low and leading to the eventual collapse the society. We need immigrants to help keep the population young, among other things.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

agent17
13

agent17
13

To help the issue we need a more conservative stance on immigration and a more liberal stance on abortion.

Cultures are different, some people breed like animals. Without any sense of responsibility. And there's not enough to go around, some people have to get off the gravy train.

We cannot sustain a society where people can just pop out baby after baby. There has to some control. Especially in these difficult economic times.

I don't disagree with you, there does NEED to be some form of control, but how many governments would be willing to do this, we all know there are ethical issues with population restrictions. I doubt many people would even consider it until the "29th" day.

Yeah and we can ignore everything I said about the birth rate being too low and leading to the eventual collapse the society. We need immigrants to help keep the population young, among other things.

Under populated countries are being hurt by countries with overpopulation, if the population drops world-wide, but maintains a balance among the nations then this issue will no longer be prevalent.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

makeshyft
176

makeshyft
176

Only someone who had never had sex would make such a ludicrous comment. Do you actually believe that virtual games are an adequate replacement for actually living? Interesting position to take. Ridiculous, but interesting.

in the future it´ll be alot more realistic.. like 5 sense gaming or something like that.

but that was just the first thing that popped into my mind. it wouldnt be the cure

but it might help a little.

I don't really care how realistic it becomes. Gaming is not a substitute for real life, and never will be. If you acually believe that it is, then you're even more sad than I initially thought you were.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mike Tequeli
11

Mike Tequeli
11

To help the issue we need a more conservative stance on immigration and a more liberal stance on abortion.

Cultures are different, some people breed like animals. Without any sense of responsibility. And there's not enough to go around, some people have to get off the gravy train.

We cannot sustain a society where people can just pop out baby after baby. There has to some control. Especially in these difficult economic times.

I don't disagree with you, there does NEED to be some form of control, but how many governments would be willing to do this, we all know there are ethical issues with population restrictions. I doubt many people would even consider it until the "29th" day.

Yeah and we can ignore everything I said about the birth rate being too low and leading to the eventual collapse the society. We need immigrants to help keep the population young, among other things.

yeah now we need babies in some coutries and some countries

have too much. but i wasnt talking about countries or the present.

i was talking about this entire planet, in the future.

And I said that the global population should stabilize around 9 billion, in fifty years. This isn't a concern, so before you try to start a family in Azeroth keep that in mind.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33stradale
15

33stradale
15

Overcrowding is already a problem, it makes places dirty, it fills the internet with n00bs, iit has caused the lack of recourses that is driving the ''oil wars'' and such and making mini bars empty before i get a chance to refill

I really don't see the down side to eugenics... especially now that jews have power in gov't.... so they won't get left out just for that reason